Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:13 am
I think Star Trek proved a very important point! 
Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:42 am
I saw that episode, and I agree with ded.
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:08 am
it's not likely that this "parasite" would have had much of a life as it's not very likely it would even have been able to express itself. The second brain probably would have allowed a personality, but was there brain damage or retardation along with isolation of communication. Blinking in code would have been the only way. That would take years to accomplish.
It had a face. What if it hadn't? Would you feel any different then? Think hard on this before you answer.
Has anyone found out if the second head was responding to its surroundings?
*edit*-Added
interesting.
It had a face. What if it hadn't? Would you feel any different then? Think hard on this before you answer.
Has anyone found out if the second head was responding to its surroundings?
*edit*-Added
article wrote:The head that was removed from Manar had been capable of smiling and blinking but not independent life, doctors said.
interesting.
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:19 am
Maybe if we have that technology for preserving heads in jars like on Futurama.... 
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:18 am
My dad is a surgeon so he has all kinds of books with freaky pictures 
I took a small read about these cases of siamese twins. Usually, when the twins are still attached to the head, they have two full grown bodies. If surgically separated, they'll each have their own lives without problem.
In this case though, the second embryo did not develop properly and would have been a dead born baby if it wasn't for the presence of the other. The other baby does everything for the head. Eat, breathe, and all the rest you need all those organs for. Now, if the second twin has such major development problems it failed to grow a body, what makes you think the head is allright? I'll tell you. It isn't. It's just hanging there as living tissue, but it doesn't do much.
The funny thing during pregnancy is that when nature cocks up, it'll try to clean after itself. It can't let the second embryo die during pregnancy, so it made connections for bloodflow and that's basically it.
If the article suggests the head could "smile and blink", and given the age of the baby, it leads to believe it's about the only thing it can do.
I took a small read about these cases of siamese twins. Usually, when the twins are still attached to the head, they have two full grown bodies. If surgically separated, they'll each have their own lives without problem.
In this case though, the second embryo did not develop properly and would have been a dead born baby if it wasn't for the presence of the other. The other baby does everything for the head. Eat, breathe, and all the rest you need all those organs for. Now, if the second twin has such major development problems it failed to grow a body, what makes you think the head is allright? I'll tell you. It isn't. It's just hanging there as living tissue, but it doesn't do much.
The funny thing during pregnancy is that when nature cocks up, it'll try to clean after itself. It can't let the second embryo die during pregnancy, so it made connections for bloodflow and that's basically it.
If the article suggests the head could "smile and blink", and given the age of the baby, it leads to believe it's about the only thing it can do.
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:33 am
Those are very poor measures of intellegance as both are motor functions.
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:44 am
Maybe they should have just let her keep the head and named her "Zaphodia Beeblebrox"
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:28 pm
Here's another strange one - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6941620/
I think Lobber was mentioning the fact that one of the requirements of life is the ability to reproduce. I agree, it dosn't have anything to do with sentience, but I think that's where it was coming from.
I think that the second head should have been removed -edit:killed- if the only alternative was to leave it attached (which it was). But, if there was some other way for it to live, perhaps on life support, perhaps... attached to another body? Strange thoughts, but it would have been interesting, and it would save two lives.
That's a *really* interesting ethical point, I never even thought about it when I posted the article.
I think Lobber was mentioning the fact that one of the requirements of life is the ability to reproduce. I agree, it dosn't have anything to do with sentience, but I think that's where it was coming from.
I think that the second head should have been removed -edit:killed- if the only alternative was to leave it attached (which it was). But, if there was some other way for it to live, perhaps on life support, perhaps... attached to another body? Strange thoughts, but it would have been interesting, and it would save two lives.
That's a *really* interesting ethical point, I never even thought about it when I posted the article.
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:22 am
To make a risky comparison, suppose you had a dog that lost all of its legs in a traffic accident and somehow lived. Would you elect to put it out of its misery?
If that question makes you uneasy, then consider that this parasite twin had far, far less.
If that question makes you uneasy, then consider that this parasite twin had far, far less.
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:38 am
No pun intended, but perhaps someone should quit while their ahead?
Fus
Fus
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:24 am
I looked just like that when I was born...
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:31 pm
I don't know if the parasitic twin was responding to external stimuli when smiling, although that is the obvious conclusion, IMO.
It seems this is a very polarizing discussion for a lot of people. Why not just say "yeah it sucks but probably the best decision for all concerned, that is, the greatest good, was achieved by what was done"?
As for Duper's Question: Would I feel the same way if it didn't have a face? The answer is...yes, conditionally. If it didn't have a HEAD, no, I'd say cut it off and be done. But you see, a head implies a brain, and a face implies a head...If it had a head but no face...I'd still feel pretty uneasy about the situation.. Wouldn't you? Until proven otherwise, I will assume that a human entity of some capacity occupied that discarded husk...
Now to be honest, I've looked at several pictures and IMO the second head probably suffered severe retardation at best...but I still hate that situation emotionally and no amount of rationalization can stop that sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, the "what if"-feeling.
and Lothar: Considering that this occurred in Egypt, who knows what their logical/ethical reasoning process was. Perhaps irrationally, I feel that there is a good chance they callously committed a potential murder, or at least unconciously avoided the issue altogether. I don't trust 'em.
It seems this is a very polarizing discussion for a lot of people. Why not just say "yeah it sucks but probably the best decision for all concerned, that is, the greatest good, was achieved by what was done"?
As for Duper's Question: Would I feel the same way if it didn't have a face? The answer is...yes, conditionally. If it didn't have a HEAD, no, I'd say cut it off and be done. But you see, a head implies a brain, and a face implies a head...If it had a head but no face...I'd still feel pretty uneasy about the situation.. Wouldn't you? Until proven otherwise, I will assume that a human entity of some capacity occupied that discarded husk...
Now to be honest, I've looked at several pictures and IMO the second head probably suffered severe retardation at best...but I still hate that situation emotionally and no amount of rationalization can stop that sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, the "what if"-feeling.
and Lothar: Considering that this occurred in Egypt, who knows what their logical/ethical reasoning process was. Perhaps irrationally, I feel that there is a good chance they callously committed a potential murder, or at least unconciously avoided the issue altogether. I don't trust 'em.